February 8, 201213 yr F**********ck Not good. The local media is running wild with this. 5,9,12, fox19, Enquirer, 700wlw and others all saying basically the project is in jeopardy or dead I guess its safe to assume construction wont be starting any time soon.. And friday Smitherman is going to play the media to a T...We need to show up in droves
February 8, 201213 yr I even think there was an argument on this forum because some people misread the article. It said everything else (water, Cincinnati bell, etc) is $10 mill total, and Duke is the only thing that is still not figured out.
February 8, 201213 yr I have a question. Is that 19 million for the entire route or just the section through OTR and up the hill? How much did CG and E have to pay to install the wires when the last streetcar was active? I today's dollars of course.
February 8, 201213 yr Yet Duke has no problem charging its ratepayers for naming rights to the convention center? Just give Duke the naming rights for the next 30 years, have them pay for the utility relocation and call it even.
February 8, 201213 yr Does anyone know if Duke reached a similar deal with the Charlotte streetcar project? “All truly great thoughts are conceived while walking.” -Friedrich Nietzsche
February 8, 201213 yr And yet Duke has no problem with ratepayers along the streetcar line, where the ratio of customers to powerlines is huge, subsidizing their suburban infrastructure where the customer to powerline ratio is tiny by comparison.
February 8, 201213 yr Moderator Note A quick reminder that copying and pasting an entire article to these forums is a violation of copyright law, and is verboten per orders of the UrbanOhio brain trust. Quote an excerpt (3 paragraphs max.) and provide a link to the article instead. Thanks.
February 8, 201213 yr Maybe we should be happy with that cost. Milwaukee relocation of utilities for their streetcar costs between $55.5 million and $70.4 million.
February 8, 201213 yr I think I remember John Schneider saying that Duke was being overly cautious with its requirements for the utilities being moved at least 8 feet from the streetcar lines? I guess they are not listening to the engineers? How have other cities addressed these issues?
February 8, 201213 yr Yet Duke has no problem charging its ratepayers for naming rights to the convention center? Just give Duke the naming rights for the next 30 years, have them pay for the utility relocation and call it even. I like that! And why not? Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland State University and University Hospitals sponsor stations on the HealthLine bus rapid transit in Cleveland. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 8, 201213 yr By the way, COAST is having a field day with this too. They sent out an email today stating that they found a new way to kill the project and that everyone needs to show up at friday's meeting and blah blah blah. This won't stop us. The city will need to come up with the money somehow and just get it done.
February 8, 201213 yr This should be a non issue; leave the utilities where they are. If Duke needs to service them, they will need to do it around the streetcars schedule. Duke's estimate also seems to be very high. Utilities are above ground over most of the proposed line, the overhead wire should fit underneath it. It won't be 8' underneath it, but there should be ample clearance. As for underground utilities, servicing seems to be the only actual conflict, and that would just be a scheduling issue for Duke to work out.
February 8, 201213 yr ^ it's a much more complicated issue than that. Plus, there are no gas lines overhead. All of those are underground. I'm not saying duke is being reasonable, but it's false to call this a non-issue.
February 8, 201213 yr If funding can't be found, just build less system. We were content to go from Fountain Square to Findlay Market a few months ago; we can be again.
February 8, 201213 yr ^ Cars have run over these lines for DECADES and there has been no explosion from gas lines.
February 8, 201213 yr I don't think anyone has said streetcars make gas lines explode... Have they??? I don't get where that came from. A street Can be ripped up to access a line. The streetcar line cannot (as easily) be ripped up at a whim. The safety thing I don get- but moving the utilities is expected, always.
February 8, 201213 yr By the way, COAST is having a field day with this too. They sent out an email today stating that they found a new way to kill the project and that everyone needs to show up at friday's meeting and blah blah blah. about 3 posts of happy dancing in about 10 minutes & that doesn't count tweets Don't count your boobies until they're hatched
February 8, 201213 yr I lived in Minnesota back in 2002 and there was a similar situation where Xcel energy was refusing to pay the $20mil to relocate utilities to make way for a light rail line. It went to court, and it was ruled that based on state law Xcel had to move at its own expense since its a public right of way. Like the streetcar, this expense was threating construction of the line. Do any of the lawyers here know what Ohio's laws are regarding public right of way? My suspicion here is that Duke is not on the legal higher ground. The city should start and take Duke to court for the money. On an unrelated note.... so long as we are moving utility poles and ripping up the street at the same time.... seems like a pretty good opportunity to underground the wires. The overhead lines in Over the Rhine are pretty ugly.
February 8, 201213 yr Does anyone believe it is a mere coincidence that Duke has announced it is quitting negotiations on utility relocations at the precise moment the City of Cincinnati is moving full speed ahead with utility aggregation? Do you suppose Governor Kasich, working through PUCO, had anything to do with this? Just asking.
February 8, 201213 yr Does anyone believe it is a mere coincidence that Duke has announced it is quitting negotiations on utility relocations at the precise moment the City of Cincinnati is moving full speed ahead with utility aggregation? Do you suppose Governor Kasich, working through PUCO, had anything to do with this? Just asking. especially since council pledged to pursue 100% renewable energy sources for electric...
February 8, 201213 yr I guess municipal ownership of the gas and electric utilities would be too much to hope for at this point.
February 8, 201213 yr http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2012/02/08/mayor-streetcar-stalemate-with-duke.html Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory issued the following statement in response to a letter from Duke Energy that stated Duke will not pay the $18.7 million required to move its utilities out of the path of the Cincinnati Streetcar project:.......
February 8, 201213 yr Meanwhile, old letters to the editor are now showing up as "stories you might like" on the Enquirer's webiste. The letter "Buffalo's Streetcar a Failure" shows up as that and only that, no matter the fact that Buffalo doesn't even have a streetcar. Again, we see The Enquirer using letters to do their dirty work.
February 8, 201213 yr Ugh...I am a lurker but I hate when setbacks happen like this. I am trying to be optimistic but I feel like there is always something in the way of this making more progress. I am frustrated by this news.
February 8, 201213 yr FYI: Here's some lite reading regarding ODOT's procedure for reimbursing utilities for relocation: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Engineering/RealEstate/Documents/Manuals/Utilities/8200-Procedure%20for%20Utility%20Relocation,%20Adjustments%20and%20Reimbursement.pdf 8204 UTILITY REIMBURSEMENT ELIGIBILITY 8204.01 Policy The State’s policy for participation in utility relocation costs is authorized by 5501.51 ORC and explained in this section. Reimbursement of utility relocation costs by the Federal Highway Administration is authorized by 23 USC 123 and 23 CRF 645. In this regard, it must be clearly understood that the Federal Highway Administration does not pay utilities for relocation work performed, but will reimburse the individual states based on the legal obligation of the state to pay the utility. 8204.02 Privately Owned Utilities Private or publicly held utilities are eligible for reimbursement when the existing facilities are affected by the project and located on property where the utility has a compensable property right as follows: On property owned by the utility On private right of way with a valid easement On private right of way with valid prescriptive rights (affidavit required) On public road right of way with a valid easement which predates the rights held by the State Reimbursement eligibility must be substantiated by the State having on file a copy of the pertinent document (easement or affidavit) or by verifying the applicable recording data (deed book, volume and page) which supports the reimbursement claim by the utility. Reimbursement eligibility does not extend to or include additions to or betterments of the existing utility facilities. If none of the above criteria is met, the utility would not be eligible for reimbursement of the costs associated with the relocation work. 8204.03 Public Utilities/Publicly Held Utilities Reimbursement eligibility of publicly owned water line, sanitary sewer, electric, steam or other utility facility is established when the existing facilities are affected by the project and located on property where the utility has a compensable property right as follows: On property owned by the utility On private right of way with a valid easement On public road right of way under the jurisdiction of the utility On public road right of way outside the jurisdiction of the utility where the utility has a compensable agreement with the governmental agency having jurisdiction
February 8, 201213 yr We're REALLY going to have something to celebrate when this thing finally gets built. Unbelieveable. I was thinking we'd see a shovel in the ground soon, not a court case and more questionable press, FFS.
February 8, 201213 yr ^We've gone through this before, but to keep it short the City of Cincinnati has some control, but they do not have absolute control of public rights-of-way. The utilities have a right to be there, and the authority for that right comes from state law.
February 8, 201213 yr Mayor Mallory's statement about the Duke Energy impasse: Dear Streetcar Supporter, You may have heard the news that Duke Energy is pulling out of negotiations with the City on relocating their utilities for the streetcar. While this news is disappointing, let me assure you that we are moving forward on the Streetcar. I am in Washington DC right now meeting with cities from around the country that are building streetcars and light rail. In many of those cities, similar issues about the scope and cost of utility relocation have come up; however, those utility issues have never prevented a project from moving forward. For two years, the City has been actively working with Duke to come to agreement on the scope of the utility relocation need in City streets. The City has even been willing to help pay for the work that is necessary for the construction of the Streetcar. Duke has said that it has safety concerns, and we are obviously very interested in ensuring safety. Yet, Duke has not produced any supporting evidence documenting to what extent this is an issue in our city or others. Duke has shared concerns about access for maintenance. However, since the Streetcar will run 18 hours a day, there are still six available hours for Duke to schedule needed maintenance. We regularly accommodate city workers in the streets, as well as those of Duke, Cincinnati Bell, Time Warner and other service providers. In neighborhoods like Over-the-Rhine and Downtown, Duke's gas and electrical systems in city streets are old. The Streetcar project should not subsidize the modernization of Duke's assets. Further, Duke has not shared with the City engineers and engineering consultants any of the specifics of how they arrived at the $18 million price tag they say is needed. City officials have tried to work with Duke on best practices for a reasonable approach to this issue. We looked at what works in Charlotte and came up with a proposed solution to help frame our discussions. Duke showed no interest. Duke also backed out of a planned trip to Portland to examine their solution to utility issues. I am calling on Duke Energy to be reasonable and work with the City on a plan that will be best for both citizens and their customers. These issues will be resolved one way or another, just as we have resolved previous issues facing the project. The best thing for everyone involved is if Duke is a part of that resolution. Walking away does not help to move our community forward. The Streetcar project is an investment that will fuel the growth of our economy for years to come, and we are moving forward. Thank you for your continued support. Mark Mallory Mayor
February 9, 201213 yr Now I like this: http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2012/02/08/city-manager-streetcar-will-move.html Cincinnati City Manager Milton Dohoney said this afternoon that officials will continue to move ahead with plans for the city’s $110 million streetcar project, calling the rail system “a new reality” for the city. “The city of Cincinnati streetcar project is moving forward,” Dohoney said. ........ When asked after the news conference whether the city can break ground on the streetcar project without a deal with Duke, city spokeswoman Meg Olberding said simply: “They’re our streets. This project is moving forward, and we intend to use our streets.”[/quote]
February 9, 201213 yr Does anyone believe it is a mere coincidence that Duke has announced it is quitting negotiations on utility relocations at the precise moment the City of Cincinnati is moving full speed ahead with utility aggregation? Do you suppose Governor Kasich, working through PUCO, had anything to do with this? Just asking. No, it's been pretty clear for years now that for some reason Duke as an organization has no intention of accommodating this project. Whether that's because they are against transit in principal or because they are simply maximizing their profits is beyond me. I will say that watching a corporation maximize its profit on the backs of citizen-paid ROW is disgusting.
February 9, 201213 yr I have no faith, having just watched today's press conference, that the local media understands that by increasing the streetcar's "zone of influence" on Duke's utilities from 3 feet to 8 feet, the volume of utilities is affected exponentially. Meanwhile, COAST now arguing that the proposed county levy in support of Union Terminal (which is city-owned) is an attempt to free up city money for the streetcar.
February 9, 201213 yr I have no faith, having just watched today's press conference, that the local media understands that by increasing the streetcar's "zone of influence" on Duke's utilities from 3 feet to 8 feet, the volume of utilities is affected exponentially. Meanwhile, COAST now arguing that the proposed county levy in support of Union Terminal (which is city-owned) is an attempt to free up city money for the streetcar. Agreed Jake. I thought that Museum Center was County owned? If it's City owned, how can it get a County levy??
February 9, 201213 yr ^How did Cincinnati Public Schools get money from the county's stadium sales tax?
February 9, 201213 yr Does anyone believe it is a mere coincidence that Duke has announced it is quitting negotiations on utility relocations at the precise moment the City of Cincinnati is moving full speed ahead with utility aggregation? Do you suppose Governor Kasich, working through PUCO, had anything to do with this? Just asking. No, it's been pretty clear for years now that for some reason Duke as an organization has no intention of accommodating this project. Whether that's because they are against transit in principal or because they are simply maximizing their profits is beyond me. I will say that watching a corporation maximize its profit on the backs of citizen-paid ROW is disgusting. I thought Duke actually gave some money to the project already for some reason? 3.5 million is the number I remember? Am I mistaken on this?
February 9, 201213 yr Money to the city from the sale of the streetlights. "It's just fate, as usual, keeping its bargain and screwing us in the fine print..." - John Crichton
February 9, 201213 yr I have no faith, having just watched today's press conference, that the local media understands that by increasing the streetcar's "zone of influence" on Duke's utilities from 3 feet to 8 feet, the volume of utilities is affected exponentially. Meanwhile, COAST now arguing that the proposed county levy in support of Union Terminal (which is city-owned) is an attempt to free up city money for the streetcar. Agreed Jake. I thought that Museum Center was County owned? If it's City owned, how can it get a County levy?? I could be wrong, but if memory serves, didn't the City get that deal because the City owned land that was needed for the stadium project?
February 9, 201213 yr Mayor Mallory's statement about the Duke Energy impasse: Dear Streetcar Supporter, ... Duke has shared concerns about access for maintenance. However, since the Streetcar will run 18 hours a day, there are still six available hours for Duke to schedule needed maintenance. We regularly accommodate city workers in the streets, as well as those of Duke, Cincinnati Bell, Time Warner and other service providers. In neighborhoods like Over-the-Rhine and Downtown, Duke's gas and electrical systems in city streets are old. The Streetcar project should not subsidize the modernization of Duke's assets. Further, Duke has not shared with the City engineers and engineering consultants any of the specifics of how they arrived at the $18 million price tag they say is needed. ... Mark Mallory Mayor This has always seemed like the simplest answer to me, both now and when MSD was causing a stir. Build the streetcar on top of the utilities, and the utilities can work around the streetcar later on when they need to. It'll likely cost more money down the road on their side, but that's their prerogative.
February 9, 201213 yr There was a lot of frantic negotiation between the City and the County in the days of the sales tax campaign. In the end, the County agreed to pay the Cincinnati Public School district (not quite the same people as the City of Cincinnati municipality) a certain amount out of sales tax revenue. As I understand it, the Cincinnati Public School district was concerned about potential income tax revenue loss from some 500 full-time jobs in the produce industry that would be displaced by the stadiums. Then again, maybe it was property tax loss; I never understood how it all worked. Anyway, the stadium tax demonstrates how complicated government can be, with overlapping jurisdictions, protection of budgets, and inter-governmental agreements. We like to imagine that government is neat and orderly, with everything under control, and everyone playing nice together, but that's not the way the real world works. Even departments within the same government struggle with each other, sometimes over the silliest things.
February 9, 201213 yr As I recall and at 500+ pages I may be wrong, but weren't many of the deals related to the utilities made with Cinergy rather than Duke. The loss of a utility actually based here may have played a role as well.
February 9, 201213 yr As I understand it, the Cincinnati Public School district was concerned about potential income tax revenue loss from some 500 full-time jobs in the produce industry that would be displaced by the stadiums. Then again, maybe it was property tax loss; I never understood how it all worked. As part of the way to sell the stadium sales tax increase, the commissioners created a property tax rollback as an inducement for homeowners to vote for the sales tax increase. But since the public schools are funded through property taxes (and the leeway of the commission to remove funds from local school districts is likely controled by state law), the commissioners had to make up the lost percentage of revenue that property tax revenue to the school districts. I thought that Museum Center was County owned? If it's City owned, how can it get a County levy?? The City owned Union Terminal. At a certain point, the Cincinnati Museum Center decided that it was wrong/unsustainable to rely upon City funding when its visitation numbers indicated a considerable amount of in-county but out-of-City visitors. So the Museum Center derived a county-wide supportive tax, similar to that enjoyed by Mental Health, etc. (the County seems to have more control over the nature of these extraordinary levies and how they are funded than school districts). My understanding is that the deal worked out between the City, the County and the Museum Center was that in exchange for the supportive tax, the County gets an increasing amount of ownership in the physical assets owned by the City, which would be the building. This structure has been in place for some time, I believe, at least for a decade. If one recalls the 2009 election season, the Museum Center had asked the County for an increase in the supportive tax in order to undertake major structural repairs to the building. They were unable to get the full amount they wanted, largely because the Commissioners did not want to raise the overal tax rate at the time, and other institutions were hurting for operational funds due to the incredibly depressed economy; for example, the Library System asked for and received its first ever county-wide supportive tax that year.
February 9, 201213 yr Brian THomas from 55krc spent THREE HOURS on his show ripping the project. I think we may see unprecedented levels of Chris Smitherman today
February 9, 201213 yr I'm no legal expert but if the area in question is the city's right of way, doesn't the city pretty much have control who is in it and where they are located? To me, it sounds like the issue is that Duke considers the streetcar a city owned utility, and thus cannot force another utility to upgrade or relocate at their expense for the city-owned utility. If the streetcar is considered a transportation asset, then the utility must pay. How's streetcars considered in Ohio law (ORC), a utility or transportation asset (keeping in mind that the applicable ORC might date back from the time when the streetcar systems were private) ?.
February 9, 201213 yr >Brian Thomas This guy has a weekly "listener lunch", which I fantasize about crashing. The thing is, for anyone with a regular job, you can't just dip out for two hours to go sit with Thomas and 30 of his blue-haired groupies.
Create an account or sign in to comment